Fwd: [council] Advice requested by the ICANN Board / Consumer Trust

[Alain Berranger]

Dear NCSG Colleagues,

While Wendy's arguments about innovation are convincing to me, I feel I
need understanding on how consensus is built and how decision-making is
made and communicated in/by the GNSO.

>From the point of view of GNSO procedures then, do we have to write to
Board for every issue NCSG dissents? or would that be an exceptional
situation? What is the purpose and value of the GNSO vote?  Does it mean
that the consensus, if any, firms up at the Board level only? When NCSG
agrees with a recommendation, do the other SGs usually write to the Board?
For that matter, in the case of GNSO votes with dissention, does/should the
Board not receive a summary of the arguments for and against the
recommendation?

Alain

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:

> Hi NCSG,
>
> We dissented from this recommendation in Council, but were outvoted. Do
> we want to send a letter of our own to the Board?
>
> Here was a letter I wrote to the drafting team, that we could repurpose
> for the Board:
>
> I write because I continue to have strong disagreement with the "trust"
> metrics and their presentation. Since I have been unable to make the
> calls due to persistent scheduling conflicts, I wanted to spell out the
> concerns I discussed with several of you in Prague. I appreciate the
> work that has gone into the metrics, but believe that the "trust"
> metrics rely on a faulty premise, that gTLDs should be predictable,
> rather than open to innovative and unexpected new uses.
>
> The current draft mistakes a platform, a gTLD, for an end-product. A key
> value of a platform is its generativity -- its ability to be used and
> leveraged by third parties for new, unexpected purposes. Precisely
> because much innovation is unanticipated, it cannot be predicted for a
> chart of measures. Moreover, incentives on the intermediaries to control
> their platforms translate into restrictions on end-users' free
> expression and innovation.
>
> Just as we would not want to speak about "trust" in a pad of printing
> paper, on which anyone could make posters, and we don't ask a road
> system to interrogate what its drivers plan to do when they reach their
> destinations, I think we shouldn't judge DNS registries on their users'
> activities.
>
> ICANN's planned reviews of and targets for gTLD success should not
> interfere with market decisions about the utility of various offerings.
>
> In particular, I disagree with the second group of "trust" metrics, the
> " Measures related to confidence that TLD operators are fulfilling
> promises and complying with ICANN policies and applicable national
> laws:" namely,
> * Relative incidence of UDRP & URS Complaints; Relative incidence of
> UDRP & URS Decisions against registrant;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of intellectual property claims
> relating to Second Level domain names, and relative cost of overall
> domain name policing measured at: immediately prior to new gTLD
> delegation and at 1 and 3 years after delegation;
> * Quantity of Compliance Concerns w/r/t Applicable National Laws,
> including reported data security breaches;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of Domain Takedowns;
> * Quantity of spam received by a "honeypot" email address in each new gTLD;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of fraudulent transactions caused by
> phishing sites in new gTLDs;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of detected phishing sites using new
> gTLDs;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of detected botnets and malware using
> new gTLDs
> * Quantity and relative incidence of sites found to be dealing in or
> distributing identities and account information used in identity fraud; and
> * Quantity and relative incidence of complaints regarding inaccurate,
> invalid, or suspect WHOIS records in new gTLD
>
> Separately, I disagree with the targets for the "redirection,"
> "duplicates," and "traffic" measures. All of these presume that the use
> for new gTLDs is to provide the same type of service to different
> parties, while some might be used to provide different services to
> parties including existing registrants.
>
> Thanks,
> --Wendy
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Advice requested by the ICANN Board
> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:33:05 -0000
> From: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
> To: Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com>
> CC: <bruce.tonkin at icann.org>, "Bill Graham" <bill.graham at icann.org>,
>     <diane.schroeder at icann.org>, "Bill Graham" <bill.graham at icann.org>,
>        "'Glen de Saint Géry'" <Glen at icann.org>,
> <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
> Dear Steve,
>
>
>
> Please see the attached regarding consumer trust, consumer choice and
> competition in the context of the domain name system per the 10 December
> 2010 ICANN board approved resolution (2010.12.10.06).
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan Robinson
>
> Chair
>
> ICANN GNSO Council
>
>
>
>  <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com> jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
>
> skype: jonathan.m.r
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger


AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire
ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le
destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au
destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement
interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le
reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou
si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer
sur le champ  et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de
votre coopération.

CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use
of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone
other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for
forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose,
distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or
in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and
destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130115/0825fb61/attachment-0001.html>